5 months ago
35
‘Culture Doctor’ Sonjah Stanley Niaah says that following the recent Court of Appeal ruling in favor of music producer Dale Virgo’s daughter in the Kensington Primary vs Virgo case, schools must now focus on developing healthy grooming policies and providing quality education.
Dr. Niaah, who is Head of the Reggae Studies Unit at the University of the West Indies, spoke on the issue on Television Jamaica’s All Angles, saying that there were more serious matters to be discussed in the education system.
The programme was aired in the aftermath of the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the Supreme Court’s July 2020 decision, which found that the then principal, Carlene McCalla Francis, had not breached Zahara Virgo’s constitutional rights when she ordered that her locks be cut for her to attend the school in September 2018.
McCalla Francis had told Zahara’s mother that the child, who was six at the time, was not allowed to wear her hair locked and would not be permitted to attend the school unless her locks were removed.
McCalla Francis, when asked the reasons that locks were not allowed at the school, had said that that the classroom gets hot and parents do not wash their children’s hair, causing “junjo” and “lice”, according to court documents.
On Wednesday, Dr. Niaah shared a clip of herself on All Angles on her Instagram page with the caption: “Your #hair is your business. Let us finally rest this matter with the recent ruling in Kensington Primary vs ZVirgo appeal and develop healthy grooming policies for schools where necessary, but we must not lose sight of the quality #education we are after.”
During the program, Dr. Niaah predicted that some administrators would still transgress under the guise of school rules instead of focusing on educational outcomes.
“I want us to pause a moment and consider. Yes, some schools are still going to go rogue. Administrators are going to go rogue and do what they want to do in the name of school rules. But I want us to pause a moment and consider that indeed and in fact, whether the child is wearing pink hair, locks, no hair, bald head, that is not consequential to the outcome in terms of the educational experience and the grades, the educational process that we are interested in, in terms of our education system,” the University lecturer said.
“That’s where we need to be focusing our attention. And I am disappointed that in 2024, our attention is not, look how much time we spend talking about this thing called hair, these cases that come up all the time… And I want to just remind us, if it is a matter in the education system, let us focus on education, not what’s growing on people’s bodies that they have a sovereign right to be able to manage and control,” she added.
On Monday, the outgoing Court of Appeal President Justice Patrick Brooks stated in his ruling that “the policy of the board of management of Kensington Primary on the wearing of dreadlocks hairstyle” had breached several of Zahara’s rights.
The judge said, among other things, that her right to freedom of expression and the right to equitable treatment by a public authority in the exercise of any function were violated.
On Tuesday, Dale Virgo took to Instagram, where he expressed joy that his daughter had been victorious.
“So glad this is done! I am happy that the courts made the right decision, it has been a very long and stressful road. I hope no child should be refused education based on their hair or religious belief,” he wrote.
Kensington Primary School’s grooming policy had barred the wearing of locks, braids, and beads, but had made an exception for dreadlocks on religious grounds.
The Virgos had filed a claim against the school, the education ministry, and the attorney general contending that Zahara’s rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to equitable and humane treatment and respect for and protection of private life and privacy, had been breached.
Kensington Primary in their defence, had argued that Zahara had been barred because her hairstyle could lead to an outbreak of lice and fungal diseases. However, the Court of Appeal, in rubbishing the claims, said the Supreme Court was wrong to find that the policy did not infringe on her right to freedom of expression.
The Court also said that there was no proper justification for barring her and pointed out that the Education Regulations cover how students should be treated if afflicted with an infestation.
The judges also debunked the school’s claim that Zahara’s hairstyle could lead to health and hygiene issues, as “there is no evidence that her hair suffers from unhygienic practices that would cause disruptive behaviour or a breakout of lice and fungal infestation, or that her hairstyle posed such a risk over and above the risk from hairstyles worn by other children at the school”.
English (US) ·